Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

The water feature and the law.

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
cattyal
cattyal e2 Member 96032 forum postscattyal vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 12:13 PM


Quote: I am glad to see a posting where the photographer is happy with what happened and has pointed out the good points.

What I am not happy about is the way the thread seems to be taken over as an "I am doing no wrong - bugger off and leave me alone" rant.

I was thinking just the same Smile

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
2 Aug 2012 - 12:13 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

franken
franken e2 Member 113103 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 12:28 PM


Quote: Since when did anybody need 'a right' to approach anybody?

In their official capacity of uploading the law(UK) they needed just cause and didn't really have it despite despite the request from the cctv person.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 12:33 PM

Do PCSOs have any rights over and above any other civilian?

Jestertheclown
2 Aug 2012 - 12:33 PM


Quote: I am glad to see a posting where the photographer is happy with what happened and has pointed out the good points.

What I am not happy about is the way the thread seems to be taken over as an "I am doing no wrong - bugger off and leave me alone" rant.


Exactly.

I wondered how long it would take for the "I carry this little card so bugger off" posts to arrive.

The whole point of my original post was to point out that, firstly the man overseeing the CCTV was doing his job. He saw what he thought could be a potential problem and dealt with it as he'd no doubt been instructed to do.
The PCSOs that dealt with it were sent, I'd imagine, because they were the closest at the time. I dare say I could just as easily have been approached by a passing dog handler or firearms officer. It was a question of using the troops that were most readily available.
The two officers, a man and a woman, were polite, courteous, professional and friendly. Not once did they intimate that I was doing anything wrong or that there was anything untoward going on. They were merely doing their job and in my opinion, they did it well.
As for their having a lack of understanding of the law, I doubt very much that that was the case. I'm quite certain that they were as aware of my rights as I was and they dealt with the situation accordingly.
I could, of course, got on my high horse and started shouting about my rights to take photographs in public places ( I do know my rights) and waving my little card about but would it have made a difference?
Well, yes, it probably would.
I'm quite sure that the attitude of the two officers would have changed considerably and we would have conducted our business the hard way.
The eventual result would have been the same but they would have gone away disillusioned because they'd encountered an unnecessarily stroppy member of the public and might well have approached the next photographer that they run into in a completely different fashion.
As it was, the matter was resolved amicably and to my mind satisfactorily.
We each went on our way, happy and none the worse for the encounter.

Bren.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 12:35 PM

There is a middle course, of course. It is perfectly possible to assert your rights without histrionics! Wink

franken
franken e2 Member 113103 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 12:39 PM

It's not a "carry little card so bugger off" post, these people are civilians in uniform and are employed to uphold the law as laid down by parliament. The fact that some are ignorant of the law is no excuse despite being nice and polite.

franken
franken e2 Member 113103 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 12:41 PM


Quote: There is a middle course, of course. It is perfectly possible to assert your rights without histrionics! Wink

I agree and have done so several times, in fact the last time as mentioned above he was happy to read the AP information and said thank you in the end. I've always been happy to speak to them in a pleasant manner but I know my rights.

Last Modified By franken at 2 Aug 2012 - 12:44 PM
Jestertheclown
2 Aug 2012 - 12:47 PM


Quote: In their official capacity of uploading the law(UK) they needed just cause and didn't really have it despite despite the request from the cctv person.


What cause would they have needed then? Surely just the possibility that some misdeed involving children could have been taking place would be sufficient? Would their cause have been just if something had been going on?


Quote: The fact that some are ignorant of the law is no excuse despite being nice and polite.

Why the animosity?
Nowhere have I said that they were ignorant of the law. That's just something that you've decided.

As it was, there was no need for me to state my case with or without histrionics, although yours is a good point CB, had the need arisen.

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 1:30 PM

It's not a "carry little card so bugger off" post. Such a card, as I discovered avoids all the arguement, discussions, misunderstandings, nastiness and histrionics. Well worth carrying one if you are likely to take the sort of pictures that seem to upset the modern PC brigade ( No pun intended)

franken
franken e2 Member 113103 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 1:30 PM


Quote: Nowhere have I said that they were ignorant of the law. That's just something that you've decided.


They didn't have just cause because you had a big camera, and I don't make the law.

The chap looking at the scene via a cctv camera sent them down because you had a big camera and you were photographing children. Would he have sent them if you were using a camera Phone?

This is not having a go at you it's the very fact that you need due cause to ask questions like this and that's the real issue. They were probably pleasant as they were obviously aware of the error in the end.

Having a big camera appears to relate to something sinister these days.

You were doing no harm.

Last Modified By franken at 2 Aug 2012 - 1:36 PM
mikehit
mikehit  56315 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 1:54 PM

You've missed the point franken.
Even if the PCSOs know the law (which they probably do), if they are requested to attend then they will do so. They first have to decide the merits of why the person making the request asked them to attend.


Imagine looking out of your window at night and seeing three youths wearing hoodies lurking about in the shadows. You phone the police because you are concerned. How would you feel if the police said to you on the phone 'we won't send someone out because they ahve a right to be there'? The least you would expect is for them to come and check it out.


Quote: you need due cause to ask questions like this

The due cause as you put it was that someone phoned up with a concern about someone's behaviour.


Quote: Having a big camera appears to relate to something sinister these days.

That's the problem and is one of perception by the person who called out the PCSOs.

franken
franken e2 Member 113103 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 2:09 PM

The due cause as you put it was that someone phoned up with a concern about someone's behaviour.


Where's that mentioned above?
As mentioned by me above the last time I was stopped by a PCSO I was on public land photographing a building. He shouted to me, "what are you doing?"

My reply was , "I'm photographing this building."

His reply was, "You have no rights to do so."

He wasn't the most pleasant of people and I asked him to read some information that I had as mentioned further back. His reply, " I didn't know that" and thanked me for showing it to him before walking away. So they're obviously not all up to speed with the rights of photographers.

Last Modified By franken at 2 Aug 2012 - 2:11 PM
NEWMANP
NEWMANP e2 Member 61583 forum postsNEWMANP vcard United Kingdom574 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 2:19 PM

maybe i started this. --- and im not the "bugger off and leave me alone" type.

what im saying is why would there be a need to even ask the question.

afterall Frank Meadow Sutclife wandered around Whitby in the 1800s placing kids at the front of his shots as did Cartier Bresson in Paris or wherever (boy with french bread stick). i see shots on here with children in the composition and there isnt anything to see in there but composition. i just dont get it. Damn it the church, and particularly the orphanage system has far more to answer to than photographers. (get ready for the barrage now).

go and ask your yound kids who shouldnt have face book sites if they have opened the account with fictiocious ages and then check the pictures they are posting. no blame seems to be pointing there.

when did photographers suddendly become badly thought of this way. why has attitude towards us changed so much. everything that is going on out there that is unthinkable has been going on a long long time. and its not photographers that are to blame any more than anyone else.

my son and his partner were stopped from photographing their 6month baby on his first trip to the pool last week (with a compact). when will this madness end.

Phil

Last Modified By NEWMANP at 2 Aug 2012 - 2:26 PM
franken
franken e2 Member 113103 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
2 Aug 2012 - 2:46 PM

This may clear things up and only you can decide that.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

Jestertheclown

Ken, once again, you're not getting the point; we'we all got a copy of that and/or other similar documents.
The point here isn't that either the PCSOs or myself didn't know all of that.
The point is that the officers concerned dealt with a situation which, for all they knew, could have become an 'incident,' professionally, efficiently and correctly.
I'm not trying to stir up a hornets' nest of 'little cards' and strident cries of "I know my rights."
I'm trying to put a positive spin on the situation.

Last Modified By Jestertheclown at 2 Aug 2012 - 2:58 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.